Universal basic services solve poverty better because they reflect shared needs and collective responsibility

The term ‘universal basic services’ (UBS) was originally coined to signpost a policy alternative to ‘universal basic income’ (UBI). The latter is a proposal to give regular, unconditional cash payments to all individuals, regardless of their income or status. The former is a proposal to develop more and better collectively provided services that are free for all who need them, regardless of income or status. Both are put forward as ways of reducing poverty and inequality, and improving wellbeing for all. It is beyond the scope of this paper to consider the case for UBI in any depth. Arguments for and against are well documented elsewhere.2 However, the case for UBS rests in part on whether improving and extending public services is likely to be more effective in addressing poverty, inequality and wellbeing than unconditional cash payments to individuals.3 SHARED NEEDS AND COLLECTIVE RESPONSIBILITIES. Two principles are fundamental to the rationale for UBS: shared needs and collective responsibilities. We all share certain basic needs that must be satisfied if we are to be able to survive and thrive , think for ourselves and participate in society. Theories of capability and human need converge around this point. Nussbaum (2006) describes three ‘core’ capabilities: of affiliation, bodily integrity and practical reason. Doyal and Gough (1991) identify health and critical autonomy as prerequisites for social participation. This finds an echo in the goals set out by the Social Prosperity Network when it argued the case for UBS to achieve a ‘larger life for the ordinary person’4 through security, opportunity and participation.5 Human needs are not context specific, but universal across time and space. While the detail of how needs are met will vary widely, they always require certain generic ‘satisfiers’ (or ‘intermediate needs’) that do not vary. These were originally listed by need theorists as water, nutrition, shelter, secure and non-threatening work, education, healthcare, security in childhood, significant primary relationships, physical and economic security and a safe environment.6 Some argue that access to motorised transport and to the internet have now become essential for participation in society.7 However, the latter are perhaps best understood as hybrid satisfiers, between specific and generic, because they have not always been essential but are increasingly felt to be so at a global level. The social settlement established after the Second World War expressed a shared resolve that everyone’s basic needs should be met. People should be able to buy certain essentials for themselves and – where costs outstripped most household budgets - services should be provided to all who needed them. A national consensus emerged that responsibility for the welfare of the population was a collective function, conducted by pooling resources and sharing risks through the institutions of government. Marshall (1965) summed up the collective approach to social welfare in the concept of ‘social citizenship’ based on economic and social (as well as civil and political) rights.8 8 WHY SERVICES? The concepts of shared needs and collective responsibilities beg the question of how responsibility should be exercised to meet needs: through income support or through public services and other forms of collective action? This is not a question of either/or but of the balance between them. UBS advocates generally agree that adequate and accessible income support is needed, but that this should be augmented by a ‘social wage’ or ‘virtual income’ from collectively provided services that would otherwise have to be paid for out of individual or household budgets.